You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

Actually the problem with the French study is that they only used 20 rats. The species of rat they used is very prone to growing large tumours if not fed a specific diet. The entire scientific community is up in arms over this research as it wasn't done properly.

Its unfortunate that these "researchers" would spend 2 years, with such a small group, and use the wrong species of rat to conduct the study.

Actually the problem with the French study is that they only used 20 rats. The species of rat they used is very prone to growing large tumours if not fed a specific diet. The entire scientific community is up in arms over this research as it wasn't done properly.

Its unfortunate that these "researchers" would spend 2 years, with such a small group, and use the wrong species of rat to conduct the study.

A French study claiming to link genetically modified crops to cancer has come under fire almost the instant it was released.

The study has dropped like a bomb into the “Frankenstein crops” debate. Californians are due to vote in November on Proposition 37 which would mandate GM labeling on all foodstuffs. In Australia, Greenpeace activists last year destroyed a CSIRO experimental crop in Canberra.

Under lead author Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen in Normandy, the study describes itself as “the first long-term peer reviewed toxicity study into the health impact of a GM tolerant maize crop and the world’s most popular herbicide, Roundup”.

The paper has been accepted by Elsevier’s Food and Chemical Toxology. It makes the claim that over the two-year study, a diet of Roundup-tolerant maize produced the same toxic effects in the rats as putting a homeopathy-like dose of Roundup in their water (it claims that effects were measurable down to 0.1 parts per billion).

The startling – terrifying if true – effects described in the study include giant breast turmours in females, and disabled pituitaries, leading to “two to three times” the normal female mortality; while males suffered “liver congestions, necrosis, severe kidney nephropathies and large palpable tumors”.

And the numbers? According to the study, as many as 80 percent of the rats on the GM diet or Roundup water developed tumours in the first year of the study, compared to 30 percent of the control group (the reason there’s so many cancers even in the control group is this: the rats used in the study are a type bred for their susceptibility to cancers – the albino Sprague-Dawley breed.

Gruesome - but did GM corn cause

the tumours in the study?

The Sustainable Food Trust has the full paper here (PDF), under the headline “’Safe’ Levels of Round-Up Weedkiller and GM Corn Found to Cause Tumours and Multiple Organ Damage”.

However, criticism of the study has also been instant. New Scientist delved into the data and points out that while some test groups fared poorly in the study, other test groups had better survival rates than the control group. It also notes that the test groups (those fed the GM crop or watered with Roundup) were larger than the control groups.

Both New Scientist and the BBC also note that journalists could only get early access to the embargoed paper if they also signed a non-disclosure agreement, preventing them from seeking third-party scientific comment on the paper before publication.

That secrecy is curious, since the study was backed by the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (Séralini is head of its scientific board), which says it is devoted to making “every effort towards the removal of the status of secrecy prevailing in genetic engineering experiments and concerning genetically modified crops”.

The French government has leapt in with both pieds, promising an investigation into genetically modified crops. France’s health agency, ANSES, has been asked to provide an opinion, and a joint statement by the ministers of agriculture (Stephane Le Foll), ecology (Delphine Batho) and health (Marisol Touraine) raises the possibility of an “emergency suspension” of imports of Monsanto’s NK603 maize

CBS News) A French study that supposedly shows that mice who ate genetically modified corn sprayed with weed killer were more likely to develop tumors, organ damage and die early is becoming a polarizing debate among researchers.

The two-year study, which was published on Sept. 19 in Food and Chemical Toxicology, revealed that mice who were fed either a diet of Monsanto's genetically modified maize sprayed with Roundup - the company's brand of weed killer - or drank water with levels of Roundup similar to what is found in U.S. tap water were much more likely to die and at an earlier age, in addition to other health problems.

Six of the groups were fed varied diets with genetically modified products. Six groups - three male and three female - were fed Monsanto GM maize with Roundup weed killer consisting of 11 percent of their diet, 22 percent or 33 percent. Six other groups were given Monsanto GM maize in the same percentage amounts, but had no Roundup sprayed on them. Another six groups were given Roundup weed killer in their water similar to the levels found in U.S. tap water.

The remaining two groups acted as control groups and were fed non-genetically modified maize and water without Roundup weed killer.

The results showed that female rats were two to three times more likely to die than the control group. Fifty percent of the males and 70 percent of the females eating Monsanto GM maize died earlier compared to 30 percent of males and 20 percent of females not eating genetically modified products. Female rats seemed to be more negatively affected by genetically modified corn diets whether it was sprayed with Roundup or not.

Tumors seemed to be late-developing, large mammary tumors, and the affected rats suffered from severe liver and kidney damage. The tumors did not metastasize or spread to other body parts, but were so large they blocked organ function in the rats.

"After one year, there was a . . . high increase in the number of tumors," lead author Gilles-Eric Seralini, a biologist at Caen University in Caen, France and president of CRII-GEN's scientific board, said in a press call with the Washington Post.

He added that most of the female rats had two or three tumors, and most developed tumors after the fourth month in the study.

There were some reported findings some considered strange, however. Rats that ate the higher percentages of genetically modified corn did not get as sick as those who were eating the lower percentages.

Critics also have taken issue with the study's methodology. Specifically the researchers' choice of rats are known for their propensity to develop mammary tumors if their diet is not controlled. Also, the control group of just 20 mice is rather small and makes it hard to draw conclusions from comparisons.

Some experts pointed out to the BBC that the pictures of the rats with the tumors were misleading.

"The most evocative part of the paper is those pictures of tumorigenesis," said Maurice Moloney, a research biologist at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, England, said to the BBC.

He said the authors mislead readers to believe that these tumors never happen in control groups.

"I'd be surprised if it didn't, but that ought to be explicitly demonstrated, and if there was a control that ended up showing similar kinds of tumorigenesis then a picture of that rat should be shown as well, just so we can see if there are any qualitative differences between them," Moloney said.

Monsanto spokesman Thomas Helscher said the company would review the study and asserted the products' safety, according to Reuters.

"Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies performed on biotech crops to date, including more than a hundred feeding studies, have continuously confirmed their safety, as reflected in the respective safety assessments by regulatory authorities around the world," he said.

The FDA added that the agency is neutral on the report to the Washington Post.

"We will be in a better position to respond after we have more data and have had time to review the paper," Shelly L. Burgess, a spokeswoman for the agency, said to the paper.

However, some people feel that the results are being dismissed too quickly.

Reuters reports that the French government has asked the country's watchdog to investigate the findings. It also reports Austria's minister for agriculture and the environment called on the European Commission to review its approval process for GM foods.

"One thing is clear: Given this study the European Commission has to rethink its verification practices and the approval process must get an in-depth review," Austria's Niki Berlakovich said in a statement.

Gary Ruskin, campaign manager for Yes on Proposition 37 - a California initiative that aims to get labels placed on genetically modified food - said in a statement that the study was the first-ever, peer-reviewed research that took a look at the effects of genetically modified products over a long period of time. Calling the results worrying on the Right To Know blog, he pointed out that genetically engineered foods have not been adequately researched, and it is still unknown if they are safe.

"This new study is destined to raise more questions than it answers," he said. But at this point, a few things are clear. It is outrageous and shocking that this is the first long-term feeding study, even though genetically engineered foods have been on the market for nearly 20 years."

Ruskin pointed out that 50 countries around the world already require labeling.

"These findings underscore the importance of giving California families the right to know whether our food has been genetically engineered in a laboratory," he added.

"I think these are very important findings," added Dr. Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist at Kings College, London who acted as an adviser to Seralini's team, said to the BBC.

"At the very least, what this study highlights is: firstly, the need to test all GM crops in two-year, lifelong studies; and, secondly, when looking at testing the toxicity of herbicides/pesticides, we need to test the full agricultural formulation and not just the active ingredient," he added.

monsanto & other gm producers Test their products for a whopping 3months & then say its safe.. no other independant testing is done to verify.

so this guy says they tested for 2 years the life cycle of the rats.

And I wouldn't be surprised to find out that these are the same type of rats that monsatan used for only 3months to say their product, that they make billions off of, is Safe...

-
-
-

Quote:

CENSORSHIP,
MONSANTO & THE MEDIA:
BOYCOTT MONSANTO PRODUCTS

by Elaine Hollingsworth

Since my book was first published, I have been asked thousands of times why our crusade has not received more media attention. There is a simple reason for this --- CENSORSHIP --- and a perfect example is the case of investigative journalists, husband and wife team Jane Acre and Steve Wilson.

These courageous television reporters exposed the truth about what Monsanto Chemical Company is doing to the milk in Florida , and were shot down by the Murdoch press. During several months of intensive research, they learned that almost all of the milk produced in Florida comes from cows injected with Monsanto's Posilac, a recombinant bovine growth hormone, which is banned in many countries, due to its strong links with cancer.

They wrote about the Canadian government regulators who charged that Monsanto offered them millions in bribes for approval of Posilac without testing. Further, Acre and Wilson documented a "revolving door between Monsanto and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)", and traced the money trail to the University of Florida , which received millions in research grants and gifts. Surprise, surprise, the University then recommended Posilac's use.

Monsanto, in my opinion the most evil multinational on Earth (so sue me, I'm one of tens of millions who feel this way), is so rich and powerful that before their program was set to air, Acre and Wilson were told it had been pulled from the Murdoch-owned TV station, WTTV.

The good news is that Acre and Wilson have filed a lawsuit under the Whistleblowers Act, charging that WTVT bowed to pressure from Monsanto, killing their four-part series, which could have saved countless lives. This backfired on the egregious Monsanto, because they received dreadful press due to this lawsuit. But do they care? I don't think so: they amass billions every year in spite of being the most hated company on Earth.

The most telling comment in this sorry tale of greed and corruption is what Fox Vice President and WTVT General Manager, David Boylan, told reporters:

"WE PAID $3 BILLION FOR THESE TELEVISION STATIONS. WE'LL
TELL YOU WHAT THE NEWS IS. THE NEWS IS WHAT WE SAY IT IS."

Oh, yeah? Is that our future -- to be told by Monsanto and many other polluting, poisoning multinationals, and press czars such as Rupert Murdoch, what is good for our health and for the health of our planet?

In case you still have some lingering faith in your national newspaper, or local rag, bear in mind that eight corporations control more than 70% of the world's media. And that means not just television, but radio, newspapers, magazines, cable, theatre chains, publishing houses, film production (unless financed by the gutsy Michael Moore), satellite systems and theme parks. Yes, even Mickey Mouse is not immune!